STEPHEN M. PAULSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appeal is frivolous and affirms the district court's dismissal of the complaint for a refund of a civil penalty.
Appellant was assessed a civil penalty for filing a frivolous income tax return, responding to all items with an asterisk referencing constitutional a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Frivolous Tax Return Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Stephen M. Paulson appeals from a judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut (Jose A. Cabranes, Judge) dismissing his complaint under 26 U.S.C. § 6703 for refund ■ of a civil penalty assessed against him by the Internal Revenue Service for filing a frivolous income tax return, id. § 6702(a). The return responded to every item of information called for with an asterisk reference to a footnote invoking a series of constitutional amend-' ments.
The appeal is as frivolous as the return for which appellant has been properly assessed a penalty. The Supreme Court has ruled that a self-incrimination claim “against every question on the tax return” would be “virtually frivolous.” Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70, 79, 86 S.Ct. 194, 199, 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965). See also United States v. Schiff, 612 F. 2d 73, 77-78, 83 (2d Cir.1979).
Appellant’s challenges to the validity of the statute penalizing the submission of frivolous returns are entirely without merit.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant is assessed double costs in this Court plus a reasonable attorney’s fee to the appellee in the amount of $2,500, to be paid to the United States within fourteen days of the date of this decision on pain of penalties for contempt. See Schiff v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F. 2d 116, 117 (2d Cir.1984) (per curiam). The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mone v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 774 F.2d 570 (2d Cir. 1985)
-
Jolly v. United States, 764 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1985)
-
Miller v. United States & Internal Revenue Serv., 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 382 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1965)
- United States v. Irwin A. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1979)
- Irwin Schiff v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1984)